DID TRUMP JUST NIX THE IDEA OF A TWO-STATE SOLUTION?

Trump created the first new paradigm for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a quarter of a century and became the first US president to set aside the principles of the 1993 Oslo Accord.

BY TOVAH LAZAROFF,  JPOST

President Donald Trump (R) greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a joint news.

In diplomatic parlance, nothing says “I love you” more than telling a right-wing Israeli leader that perhaps a Palestinian state isn’t necessary after all.

He could have gone for the more traditional type of Valentine’s Day present. Nothing wrong with champagne, cigars, roses or even chocolates hearts.

But then, US President Donald Trump is hardly the run of the mill politician. Touching the third rail of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by appearing to disavow a two-state solution is in keeping with his torch and burn attitude to tried and true staples of Washington policies.

Twenty-some years ago, another outlier politician, former US president Bill Clinton, created a new paradigm for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Rose Garden. There, on the White House lawn on a bright fall day, he wed the Israelis and Palestinians to the notion that the only resolution to the conflict was a two-state solution.

Trump edges away from two-state solution (credit: REUTERS)

The principle of two states for two peoples became such a basic truth, that in the conflict’s lexicon it was defined as synonymous with peace. Those who supported peace, wanted a two-state solution and those who didn’t, opposed it.

As Netanyahu left for Washington this week to hold his first meeting with Trump since his January 20th inauguration, right-wing Israeli politicians called on him to trash the 25-year old standard.

They demanded that Netanyahu convince the new US president to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and to support settlement building in Area C of the West Bank.

“A Palestinian state is a stumbling block to peace,” Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev said in Jerusalem this week.

They were buoyed in their calls by the fact that since taking office, Trump has not pledged his commitment to a Palestinian state. It was presumed that he was simply waiting for Netanyahu’s arrival, so that the two of them would speak of this together, before Trump spoke about it publicly.

Instead, on a cloudy day, in a packed briefing room inside the White House, Trump created the first new paradigm for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a quarter of a century and became the first US president to set aside the principles of the 1993 Oslo Accord.

Trump did it immediately upon Netanyahu’s arrival, as the two stood near each other, at joint podiums, flanked by Israeli and American flags. With a few brief sentences, Trump stated that a two-state solution was not the only option to resolving the conflict.

“I’m looking at two states and one state. I am very happy with the one that both parties like. I thought for a while the two state might be easier to do, but honestly, if Bibi [Netanyahu] and the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, then I am happy with the one they like the best,” Trump said.

His goal, Trump explained, was peace, and in its pursuit, he was not wedded to one solution or the other.

“I would like to see a deal be made,” said Trump. This would not be a deal for a two-state solution, but a deal for peace, with or without a two-state solution.

In a Tuesday briefing to reporters in Washington, a White House official expanded briefly on this idea, stating, “Peace is the goal, whether it comes in the form of a two-state solution, if that’s what the parties want, or something else, if that’s what the parties want. We’re going to help them.”

This wouldn’t be just any deal, Trump said on Wednesday, in his characteristic way of speaking. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand,” he said. It would not just be a bilateral deal but would involve other regional players.

“It would take in many, many countries and it would cover a very large territory,” Trump said.

These are countries, of course, that are firm in their stance that a two-state solution is the only alternative.

But Trump’s words do not rule out a two-state solution, rather they change the focus and the end goal. It neither eliminates nor affirms a Palestinian state, but rather invites a fresh start of sorts.

On the surface of it, Trump appeared to hand Netanyahu a significant victory. Netanyahu could return to Israel and assure his right-wing voters that one of their key demands, disavowal of a Palestinian state, might be achievable, even if he himself remained committed to it.

But Trump’s new philosophy for ending the conflict, uttered amidst a pledge of friendship, also carried with it some words of warning.

His pursuit of what he has called the ultimate deal and peace between Israelis and Palestinians would know no bounds, such that he would entertain a non-ethnic nationalist solution, otherwise known as a one state solution, or a state for all of its citizens.

In his heart, he might agree that the US embassy belonged in Jerusalem and not Tel Aviv, or that Jews should build in the West Bank, which is their biblical heart land.

But his guiding principle here will not be personal conviction, but rather his understanding of what is and what is not helpful for a renewed peace process. Settlement activity at first flush, appears to him, as it has to past US presidents, to have a negative impact on peacemaking. In the long run, Israel might be able to build and expand settlements, but in the short term, Netanyahu is back where he was, with a US president who wants him to hold off on such construction, even if comes with a promise that something will be worked out.

“As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises.  You know that, right?” Trump said to Netanyahu.

So it was that Netanyahu later told Israeli reporters that the issue of West Bank settlements was still under discussion. He neither affirmed that building would continue, nor that new plans would be frozen, only that one must proceed cautiously with respect for a new president.

Once back in Israel, he will remain the embattled right-wing leader. At odds with his voter base, he will need to fend off a rising political tide in favor of annexation and a building boom in the settlements with a series of smoke and mirror gestures.

arlance, nothing says “I love you” more than telling a right-wing Israeli leader that perhaps a Palestinian state isn’t necessary after all.

He could have gone for the more traditional type of Valentine’s Day present. Nothing wrong with champagne, cigars, roses or even chocolates hearts.

But then, US President Donald Trump is hardly the run of the mill politician. Touching the third rail of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by appearing to disavow a two-state solution is in keeping with his torch and burn attitude to tried and true staples of Washington policies.

Twenty-some years ago, another outlier politician, former US president Bill Clinton, created a new paradigm for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Rose Garden. There, on the White House lawn on a bright fall day, he wed the Israelis and Palestinians to the notion that the only resolution to the conflict was a two-state solution.

Trump edges away from two-state solution (credit: REUTERS)

The principle of two states for two peoples became such a basic truth, that in the conflict’s lexicon it was defined as synonymous with peace. Those who supported peace, wanted a two-state solution and those who didn’t, opposed it.

As Netanyahu left for Washington this week to hold his first meeting with Trump since his January 20th inauguration, right-wing Israeli politicians called on him to trash the 25-year old standard.

They demanded that Netanyahu convince the new US president to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and to support settlement building in Area C of the West Bank.

“A Palestinian state is a stumbling block to peace,” Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev said in Jerusalem this week.

They were buoyed in their calls by the fact that since taking office, Trump has not pledged his commitment to a Palestinian state. It was presumed that he was simply waiting for Netanyahu’s arrival, so that the two of them would speak of this together, before Trump spoke about it publicly.

Instead, on a cloudy day, in a packed briefing room inside the White House, Trump created the first new paradigm for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a quarter of a century and became the first US president to set aside the principles of the 1993 Oslo Accord.

Trump did it immediately upon Netanyahu’s arrival, as the two stood near each other, at joint podiums, flanked by Israeli and American flags. With a few brief sentences, Trump stated that a two-state solution was not the only option to resolving the conflict.

“I’m looking at two states and one state. I am very happy with the one that both parties like. I thought for a while the two state might be easier to do, but honestly, if Bibi [Netanyahu] and the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, then I am happy with the one they like the best,” Trump said.

His goal, Trump explained, was peace, and in its pursuit, he was not wedded to one solution or the other.

“I would like to see a deal be made,” said Trump. This would not be a deal for a two-state solution, but a deal for peace, with or without a two-state solution.

In a Tuesday briefing to reporters in Washington, a White House official expanded briefly on this idea, stating, “Peace is the goal, whether it comes in the form of a two-state solution, if that’s what the parties want, or something else, if that’s what the parties want. We’re going to help them.”

This wouldn’t be just any deal, Trump said on Wednesday, in his characteristic way of speaking. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand,” he said. It would not just be a bilateral deal but would involve other regional players.

“It would take in many, many countries and it would cover a very large territory,” Trump said.

These are countries, of course, that are firm in their stance that a two-state solution is the only alternative.

But Trump’s words do not rule out a two-state solution, rather they change the focus and the end goal. It neither eliminates nor affirms a Palestinian state, but rather invites a fresh start of sorts.

On the surface of it, Trump appeared to hand Netanyahu a significant victory. Netanyahu could return to Israel and assure his right-wing voters that one of their key demands, disavowal of a Palestinian state, might be achievable, even if he himself remained committed to it.

But Trump’s new philosophy for ending the conflict, uttered amidst a pledge of friendship, also carried with it some words of warning.

His pursuit of what he has called the ultimate deal and peace between Israelis and Palestinians would know no bounds, such that he would entertain a non-ethnic nationalist solution, otherwise known as a one state solution, or a state for all of its citizens.

In his heart, he might agree that the US embassy belonged in Jerusalem and not Tel Aviv, or that Jews should build in the West Bank, which is their biblical heart land.

But his guiding principle here will not be personal conviction, but rather his understanding of what is and what is not helpful for a renewed peace process. Settlement activity at first flush, appears to him, as it has to past US presidents, to have a negative impact on peacemaking. In the long run, Israel might be able to build and expand settlements, but in the short term, Netanyahu is back where he was, with a US president who wants him to hold off on such construction, even if comes with a promise that something will be worked out.

“As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises.  You know that, right?” Trump said to Netanyahu.

So it was that Netanyahu later told Israeli reporters that the issue of West Bank settlements was still under discussion. He neither affirmed that building would continue, nor that new plans would be frozen, only that one must proceed cautiously with respect for a new president.

Once back in Israel, he will remain the embattled right-wing leader. At odds with his voter base, he will need to fend off a rising political tide in favor of annexation and a building boom in the settlements with a series of smoke and mirror gestures.

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. Bear Klein

    Trump said it is up to both sides to agree whatever brings a real peace, the formula does not matter. In others words Israel will not be arm twisted to create a terror state in Judea/Samaria.

    This is a major win for Israel. The Palestinians have wanted to force an Israeli retreat to the old cease fires lines upon Israel. This will not happen now.

    Israelis are now off the hook for a while. Netanyahu has made it clear he will not annex large amounts of Palestinians into Israel. How much annexation if any he is willing to agree to remains to be seen. For now Netanyahu has his status quo. The IDF is in charge of everything to the river which he made clear is not negotiable.

    The Two Statism is certainly in the process of being buried. Many “Two Staters” who worship this false religion are still in denial of its death. They must be told this false pagan religion died and it is time to find a wiser, realistic path towards the direction peace, security and stability.

  2. Frank Adam

    So what is Israel to do with areas A and B – leave them to rot or go to Jordan?

    Oddly enough the Trump newcomer’s flippancy has actually cornered the Arab side to grasp the two state solution – at last after 8 previous refusals. They might as with previous offers be too late, but nevertheless some progress.

    What now needs rubbing in is that they the PA need to move quickly and lighten ship by: stop quibbling over, “refugee return,” or the status of Israeli Arabs. They also need to face not returning to all the GL – and here throwing Obama’s land swaps at the political twerps will be delicious.

    The GL was offered in 1967 and even available with some adjustments till Camp David in 2000. Now there is a premium on the delay while quibbling over refugees and much else. Compare UN 181 being a premium on Arab rejection Peel 37 and the GL being the premium on Arab rejection of UN 181.

  3. ltrail

    This is great news for all parties. It clarifies that the outcome is peace. The best solution would be for the so-called Palestinians to assimilate into Israel society and not remain in ghettos.

  4. xxx

    What I saw in this more detailed description of the contents of the Meeting between Netanyahu and Trump was that the solution could be Two States, One State, or NO State solution.

    This could be achieved by the determined stamping out of the terrorists, and the US is already moving to be the point of the arrow in that fight.

    It looks as if the Israeli- Arab squatter problem has been placed on a sort of “side” burner, for now.

    We’ll know more from the official approach of the new US ambassador to Israel….when confirmed and installed.

  5. Sebastien Zorn

    @ Frank Adam:
    They can’t and they won’t. They don’t actually care about statehood. It’s the Trojan horse of the phased plan they want. I’m sure they’d rather be exiled back to Tunisia — remember, Rabin, Peres and Beilin actually brought Arafat back from Tunisia when the PLO was on the verge of collapse due to its support of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait pissing off its sponsors in the Arab world.

    As for Areas A and B. Stephen Plaut’s plan was brilliant for the short term. (in the long, the Arabs have to go). It fixes the problems in the other plans:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/173597/time-annex-judea-and-samaria-steven-plaut

    “…Israel must declare: The game of pretense and fiction is over. Israel is no longer willing to pretend that there exists some sort of “Palestinian people” entitled to statehood. The “Palestinians” are Arabs, and Arabs already have 22 states. They will not get yet another inside Israeli lands. Any Palestinian wishing to enjoy national sovereignty is free to move to one of those 22 Arab states, but no Arab sovereignty will exist in Israeli territory, meaning the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

    The “Palestinian declaration of statehood” must be dealt with by means of a unilateral Israeli settlement imposed on the West Bank and de-nazification of the local population.

    The principles upon which such a unilateral Israeli concordance and resolution must be founded are these:

    1. The West Bank belongs to Israel and is Israeli in all ways. No non-Israeli sovereignty of any form will be permitted in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The West Bank is part of the Jewish national homeland, always was, and always will be.

    2. “Palestinian” Arabs living in the West Bank will not receive Israeli citizenship and will not vote in Israeli national elections.

    3. The land and resources in the West Bank will remain under Israeli supervision, control, and regulation.

    4. “Palestinians” who do not wish to live under Israeli sovereignty will be free to leave. Israel may consider providing financial support, property compensation, or incentives for those so wishing to leave.

    5. Most “Palestinians” choosing to remain in the West Bank will live in reservations, in some ways resembling Native-American-Indian territories that function inside the United States (possibly even including casinos), although in some ways they will differ. Reservations will be operated in those parts of the West Bank that have large concentrations of Arab population, meaning Jericho, Nablus, Ramallah, Jenin, Tul Karem, and a few other areas. Reservations will NOT have territorial contiguity. In each reservation, the “Palestinians” will be permitted autonomy and limited self-rule to manage their own local affairs as long as violence is completely absent from the reservation. Where violence is present, they will be denied autonomy. Reservations from which terrorism arises may be shut down and their populations dispersed. Arabs engaging in or supporting terrorism in any way will be deported.

    6. “Palestinians” in the West Bank will be considered to be resident aliens within the Jewish state. Many still have Jordanian passports and citizenship and will be considered resident Jordanians. “Palestinians” who do not have Jordanian citizenship will be stateless unless they obtain citizenship from some other country.

    7. Jews will have the right to live anywhere they wish in the West Bank outside the reservations assigned to the “Palestinian” Arabs. The territory in the West Bank in which Arabs do not live or live sparsely, and this includes the Jordan Valley and the sparse areas in between the reservations, will be opened to unlimited Jewish settlement.

    The villages and towns with the Arab reservations will be assigned to two lists, a white list and a black list. Those in the white list will manage their own affairs without interference from the Israeli central authorities. Residents of white-list towns may hold commuter jobs in Israeli cities and industrial parks. The local authorities in the white areas will manage their schools and other local institutions. They will collect their own taxes and may benefit from revenue sharing arrangements with the Israeli fiscal authorities, like other Israeli towns. They might be allowed to operate their own local police forces. Residents in white-listed areas will be fully and freely mobile, able to move freely within and among all white-list areas. They will be allowed to develop local industry and tourist services. Their residents will have access to Israel universities, health facilities, and other services.

    Those towns and villages in the black list will enjoy none of the above. Their residents will be denied the opportunity to hold day jobs in Israeli cities and industrial parks. They will have no access to Israeli services. They will have control over nothing. Their residents will be prevented from moving freely outside their reservation, except in cases where they wish to leave the country altogether. They will receive no shared revenues, no fiscal incentives.

    Villages and towns will be assigned to the two lists based entirely on one single factor: violence. Areas in which violence occurs, and this includes rock throwing, will be assigned to the black list. Areas in which violence is absent will be assigned to the white list. Towns and villages will be reassigned to the black list from the white list when terrorism, sniping, mortars, rockets, or other forms of violence occur there. Towns and villages in the black list will be assigned to the white list only when the local population cooperates fully with Israel in apprehending and arresting the terrorists and those engaged in violence, and takes other effective actions to end the violence. Otherwise they will remain on the black list indefinitely. Entry into black list areas will be denied to foreigners, journalists, and especially to the “International Solidarity” anarchists and their ilk. Any such anarchist infiltrating the areas of the black list will be denied permission to leave them and will remain there indefinitely, or else will be imprisoned by Israel.

    This of course leaves the dilemma of the Gaza Strip. As noted, because of the Israeli folly of withdrawing from and abandoning its control over the Gaza Strip, the area is now nothing more than a large rocket-launching terrorist base. I happen to believe that, in the long run, Israel will have no choice but to re-impose its complete control over the Gaza Strip.

    But for the immediate future, an Israeli unilateral set of moves will be necessary here as well. Basically these must consist of a three-pronged assault against Gaza the very first time that a rocket is launched into Israel from that territory. In this assault, Israel will seize a strip of land several kilometers wide that will divide the Gaza Strip from Egypt and this will end the massive smuggling of weapons, explosives, drugs and other materials into Gaza. The other two prongs will split Gaza into three smaller segments. Israel will control movement of people and materials among these segments. It will arrest and shoot terrorists on the spot. And eventually it may impose the system of reservations and the white-black lists upon Gaza as well.

    This is how Israel should respond to the declaration of war by the “Palestinians” in their unilateral declaration of statehood.”

  6. Sebastien Zorn

    @ Frank Adam:
    The PLO doesn’t care about statehood. They care about the Trojan Horse, the Phased Plan. They’d sooner be exiled back to Tunisia and try again later. Look at article 3:

    “The Liberation Organization will struggle against any proposal for a Palestinian entity the price of which is recognition, peace, secure frontiers, renunciation of national rights and the deprival of our people of their right to return and their right to self-determination on the soil of their homeland.”

    http://www.iris.org.il/plophase.htm

    It’s ridiculous to call it “breaking news.” It’s not news at all.

    https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/79467/abbas-vows-never-recognize-jewish-state/#QGPS4htoCwD12i6H.97

    As for A and B, all of the plans have flaws. The Plaut plan takes the best of all of them and solves the problems, at least in the short term.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/173597/time-annex-judea-and-samaria-steven-plaut

    “…The “Palestinian declaration of statehood” must be dealt with by means of a unilateral Israeli settlement imposed on the West Bank and de-nazification of the local population.

    The principles upon which such a unilateral Israeli concordance and resolution must be founded are these:

    1. The West Bank belongs to Israel and is Israeli in all ways. No non-Israeli sovereignty of any form will be permitted in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The West Bank is part of the Jewish national homeland, always was, and always will be.

    2. “Palestinian” Arabs living in the West Bank will not receive Israeli citizenship and will not vote in Israeli national elections.

    3. The land and resources in the West Bank will remain under Israeli supervision, control, and regulation.

    4. “Palestinians” who do not wish to live under Israeli sovereignty will be free to leave. Israel may consider providing financial support, property compensation, or incentives for those so wishing to leave.

    5. Most “Palestinians” choosing to remain in the West Bank will live in reservations, in some ways resembling Native-American-Indian territories that function inside the United States (possibly even including casinos), although in some ways they will differ. Reservations will be operated in those parts of the West Bank that have large concentrations of Arab population, meaning Jericho, Nablus, Ramallah, Jenin, Tul Karem, and a few other areas. Reservations will NOT have territorial contiguity. In each reservation, the “Palestinians” will be permitted autonomy and limited self-rule to manage their own local affairs as long as violence is completely absent from the reservation. Where violence is present, they will be denied autonomy. Reservations from which terrorism arises may be shut down and their populations dispersed. Arabs engaging in or supporting terrorism in any way will be deported.

    6. “Palestinians” in the West Bank will be considered to be resident aliens within the Jewish state. Many still have Jordanian passports and citizenship and will be considered resident Jordanians. “Palestinians” who do not have Jordanian citizenship will be stateless unless they obtain citizenship from some other country.

    7. Jews will have the right to live anywhere they wish in the West Bank outside the reservations assigned to the “Palestinian” Arabs. The territory in the West Bank in which Arabs do not live or live sparsely, and this includes the Jordan Valley and the sparse areas in between the reservations, will be opened to unlimited Jewish settlement.

    The villages and towns with the Arab reservations will be assigned to two lists, a white list and a black list. Those in the white list will manage their own affairs without interference from the Israeli central authorities. Residents of white-list towns may hold commuter jobs in Israeli cities and industrial parks. The local authorities in the white areas will manage their schools and other local institutions. They will collect their own taxes and may benefit from revenue sharing arrangements with the Israeli fiscal authorities, like other Israeli towns. They might be allowed to operate their own local police forces. Residents in white-listed areas will be fully and freely mobile, able to move freely within and among all white-list areas. They will be allowed to develop local industry and tourist services. Their residents will have access to Israel universities, health facilities, and other services.

    Those towns and villages in the black list will enjoy none of the above. Their residents will be denied the opportunity to hold day jobs in Israeli cities and industrial parks. They will have no access to Israeli services. They will have control over nothing. Their residents will be prevented from moving freely outside their reservation, except in cases where they wish to leave the country altogether. They will receive no shared revenues, no fiscal incentives.

    Villages and towns will be assigned to the two lists based entirely on one single factor: violence. Areas in which violence occurs, and this includes rock throwing, will be assigned to the black list. Areas in which violence is absent will be assigned to the white list. Towns and villages will be reassigned to the black list from the white list when terrorism, sniping, mortars, rockets, or other forms of violence occur there. Towns and villages in the black list will be assigned to the white list only when the local population cooperates fully with Israel in apprehending and arresting the terrorists and those engaged in violence, and takes other effective actions to end the violence. Otherwise they will remain on the black list indefinitely. Entry into black list areas will be denied to foreigners, journalists, and especially to the “International Solidarity” anarchists and their ilk. Any such anarchist infiltrating the areas of the black list will be denied permission to leave them and will remain there indefinitely, or else will be imprisoned by Israel.

    This of course leaves the dilemma of the Gaza Strip. As noted, because of the Israeli folly of withdrawing from and abandoning its control over the Gaza Strip, the area is now nothing more than a large rocket-launching terrorist base. I happen to believe that, in the long run, Israel will have no choice but to re-impose its complete control over the Gaza Strip.

    But for the immediate future, an Israeli unilateral set of moves will be necessary here as well. Basically these must consist of a three-pronged assault against Gaza the very first time that a rocket is launched into Israel from that territory. In this assault, Israel will seize a strip of land several kilometers wide that will divide the Gaza Strip from Egypt and this will end the massive smuggling of weapons, explosives, drugs and other materials into Gaza. The other two prongs will split Gaza into three smaller segments. Israel will control movement of people and materials among these segments. It will arrest and shoot terrorists on the spot. And eventually it may impose the system of reservations and the white-black lists upon Gaza as well…”

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/173597/time-annex-judea-and-samaria-steven-plaut

    And if the world — including kapo liberal Jews Like President Rivlin, who despite his call to affirm sovereignty, had the nerve to say not giving the Arabs the vote is “Apartheid,” — chooses to call that “Apartheid,” SO WHAT? If that’s Apartheid, then it’s more than these savages deserve, and they still must eventually be driven or bribed out. If they choose to redefine that as Apartheid, I say, “Long Live Apartheid!”

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4w_eFtk3KJU/TtWePACuQPI/AAAAAAAAAwg/zejWLTrhyBM/s1600/Tweed+++Nast++Under+The+Thumb+-+twas+him+-+smaller.jpg

  7. futuret

    I SHALL NEVER AS A MESSIANIC CHRISTIAN SUPPORT A TWO STATE SOLUTION, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! THE ENTIRE WORLD SHALL BE CURSED, YAHVEH HAVE TOLD US NOT TO DIVIDE THE LAND. MEANWHILE TRUMP IS A LIAR AND A FLIP FLOP. I SUPPORT NO GOVERNMENT NOR ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, AS ALL OF THESE HAVE LED NATIONS INTO BLASPHEMY AND IDOLATRY.

    http://www.arcturi.com/ReptilianArchives/ReptilianBloodLines.html

  8. Sebastien Zorn

    @ futuret:
    Thank you for your support, however loony. I went to the website you so thoughtfully provided a link to. Wow, I thought the Farakhan-influenced (though it goes back earlier) crowd had a monopoly on this kind of thinking.

    “”Yakub (sometimes spelled Yacub or Yaqub) is a central figure of the Nation of Islam (NOI). According to the story, Yakub was a black scientist who lived “6,600 years ago” and began the creation of the white race to be a “race of devils”.”
    Yakub (Nation of Islam) – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)

    That’s why Jews who expected gratitude for becoming teachers or doctors in troubled areas got hatred from people who were taught they we are demons who just wanted to get close to them so we could destroy them. This is not speculation. I was told this to my face a week later on the same site where I had been punched for no reason and sent to the emergency room. (I was not a teacher in this context. I was feeding street cats — I got along well with the older Christian Blacks but the Muslim influence is clearly the main factor in Black antisemitism going back at least to the thirties. The guy who punched me came out of no where. The guy a week later, who I had also never seen before, also Black, well dressed, educated — boasted of his college education at Medgar Evers Colllege — said in a friendly tone, “you’re a Jew, aren’t you? Don’t try to deny it.” That’s where I learned this theory. I later thought to google it. He didn’t say, “Whites,” he said, “Jews.” Him and David Duke. Did anybody notice that when he debated Alex Jones on Infowars, he denied hating Black people but raged on and on about Jews?)

Comments are closed.